Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think?

[Fiyasko]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577
So, From what i've read, is that 0.8.2. is going to not allow micro transactions of less than 5430 satoshi's
Bitcoin was designed to be divisible by 8 decimal places, If we are removing some of those decimals we are undermining the entire structure of bitcoin!

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000002 should be blocked though.
What are the opinions?

[1713517625]

1713517625

[1713517625]

1713517625

[1713517625]

1713517625

[1713517625]

1713517625

[1713517625]

1713517625

[1713517625]

1713517625

[Birdy]

I need the option "as long as it's flexible enough to adjust for big price changes I'm fine with it"
We don't really need transactions that are way below 1 cent.

But I wonder how changes are handled, it would be awful, if there would be a random chance of an error in the qt-client due to coin selection.

[Hawker]

The tiny transactions are being used as a DDOS mechanism. 

When Bitcoin rises in value, this change can easily be reversed so for now, its a great idea.

[Elwar]

We need a mining pool that does not upgrade to 0.8.2.

I would be willing to buy an ASIC and join that pool specifically for this.

[Frozenlock]

Why do you want a pool that does not upgrade to 0.8.2?

[sturle]

So, From what i've read, is that 0.8.2. is going to not allow micro transactions of less than 5430 satoshi's
Bitcoin was designed to be divisible by 8 decimal places, If we are removing some of those decimals we are undermining the entire structure of bitcoin!

I can fully understand and agree that a transaction of .00000002 should be blocked though.
What are the opinions?

It is a default soft rule, not a new network rule.  I'm sure many miners will continue to relay and include those transactions in blocks, but the transactions will be harder to get through.

I think it is a wise move.  It helps users, because those small transactions are unspendable without paying more in fees than the inputs are worth.  Nanotransactions can be used to DoS the receivers wallet by making unspendable balances.  The limit will probably be reduced in the future when the default minimum fee for large transactions (in bytes) is lowered (it was recently lowered from 0.0005 to 0.0001 BTC).

[Elwar]

Why do you want a pool that does not upgrade to 0.8.2?

A mining pool to allow microtransactions to pass through.

[Missionary]

Do you have a source on this proposed change, for anyone who is not actively involved in the development and/or frequent the mailing lists?

[Hawker]

The tiny transactions are being used as a DDOS mechanism.  

When Bitcoin rises in value, this change can easily be reversed so for now, its a great idea.

You are so wrong LOL how is it used as a DDOS if fees are includes LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Please remove your hero tag and leave LOL

I agree with you that the "Hero" thing is nonsense.  They say that an infinite number of monkeys hitting on keyboards would result in the complete works of Shakespeare.  The Hero tag is just a micro version of that.

But I don't agree about the impact of endless tiny transactions on markets.

[BitcoinUK]

nothing  should be blocked, what should be done is strengthening the source code to allow the network to cope.

ignorance and avoidance is a lazy persons way out of a situation..

gavins reason for doing it is because fee's are so high that satoshi dust becomes economically unspendable.

my solution. strengthen the network to cope. remove the fee's as 25 coins at $115 each ($2875) for 10 minutes work is currently enough. fee's are not needed right now to pay for miners interests.

keep idea's like fee's for version 5 (in a few decades).

[com911]

Noob question :
Can we just move comma 2 steps right? For example turn 0.05297585 into 5.297585
So, 5.297585 will be equal ~5$ its very convenient. Block rewald will be 2500 BTC
Its like turn BTC to centiBTC.

Because i think, that when bitcoin was created, no one expected that it will be cost ~100$. And now we have some problems with useless micro BTC transactions dusting blockchain, and diffirent opinions about upcoming 0.8.2 client.  

[odolvlobo]

Noob question :
Can we just move comma 2 steps right? For example turn 0.05297585 into 5.297585
So, 5.297585 will be equal ~5$ its very convenient. Block rewald will be 2500 BTC
Its like turn BTC to centiBTC.
Because i think, that when bitcoin was created, no one expected that it will be cost ~100$. And now we have some problems with useless micro BTC transactions dusting blockchain, and diffirent opinions about upcoming 0.8.2 client.  

It's a bad idea to move the decimal point (especially just to make it convenient for dollar users). It will cause confusion every time you move it, and it doesn't really solve anything because everything, including the limit being discussed, will be adjusted also.

[Ichthyo]

Do you have a source on this proposed change, for anyone who is not actively involved in the development and/or frequent the mailing lists?

Yes, please read the developer's discussion here on Github

This patch replaces a hard-baked-in minimum fee by a test for "dust outputs". The developer's plan is to have a more dynamic test for "dust outputs" later on. Eventually they want to determine what is "dust" by observing what is currently being accepted into blocks on average  (but this is way more expensive to implement).

[SomeWhere]

I don't understand how a self-respecting developer can seriously consider implementing such a horrible hack as a temporary solution.

You are being paid to develop Bitcoin, right? Then come up with a real solution, and not some half-baked, dirty quick fix that has such a potential to harm Bitcoin.

[Blazr]

Good idea, I mean, if I send you 1 satoshi, with the fee structure we're using right now you cannot spend that 1 satoshi (0.0005BTC fee), so I loose 1 satoshi, you get nothing and the blockchain gets bloated. Its a no brainer, well at least until we have a proper fee structure in lace

[Fiyasko]

I don't understand how a self-respecting developer can seriously consider implementing such a horrible hack as a temporary solution.

You are being paid to develop Bitcoin, right? Then come up with a real solution, and not some half-baked, dirty quick fix that has such a potential to harm Bitcoin.

Yeah im gonna have to tend to agree with this guy... There has got to be a better solution.

[Ichthyo]

I don't understand how a self-respecting developer can seriously consider implementing such a horrible hack as a temporary solution.

You are being paid to develop Bitcoin, right? Then come up with a real solution, and not some half-baked, dirty quick fix....

Yeah im gonna have to tend to agree with this guy... There has got to be a better solution.

And this better solution is....?

(come on, guys, you are so smart)

[Blazr]

There has got to be a better solution.

Like?

It's not like we could actually spend these outputs before, they were always/still are unspendable. Why should we have unspendable BTC? It makes sense to block them for now. Miner's ultimately decide what tx fees we have to pay, years down the line maybe the fees will be low enough in order to allow spending of these pico-transactions.

[Birdy]

I don't understand how a self-respecting developer can seriously consider implementing such a horrible hack as a temporary solution.

You are being paid to develop Bitcoin, right? Then come up with a real solution, and not some half-baked, dirty quick fix....

Yeah im gonna have to tend to agree with this guy... There has got to be a better solution.

And this better solution is....

(come on, guys, you are so smart)

Maybe you could add another fee for every output below a certain limit (including some coin age magicz?)
Right now there are websites mass-sending single satoshis with send-many or something like this, so the current fee rules aren't appropiate.

[kiba]

They don't get paid a single satoshi to develop Bitcoin.

Except Gavin.